TedM wrote:I tried that already when I mentioned differences in Luke and Matthew, the inclusion of 90% of Mark in Matthew, and the testimony of Papias, the first testimony (that I know of) about the existence of any written gospels, a full 60-90 years after the crucifixion. He didn't show any willingness to have a thoughtful discussion about those points, so I don't expect anyone to get anywhere with that.
wrong. it's been well established that the Gospel material surrunding the passion narrative was in writing by mid first century. 19th century atheists tried to date the gospel so late. No one since the 1930s has taken that seriously. The trend today is much earlier dats. For most of the 20th century Marks was put at 70. Matthew at 80, Luke at 90 and John 95-100. But now there's a trend to put Mark pre destruction, and Matthew at 70 or even earlier. Some have put John in the 60s.
Scholars have no taken that 200 year stuff seriously for a long time.
the atheist community on on the net has sort made it's own pseudo world of scholarship that doesn't' accept real academic scholars. They want to barrow the methods and background information of academic work but not accept their conclusions.
I remember a bunch of robbery horse guys on the sec web who had their own pet theories that were in totally contradiction to the climate of opinion in academia. One guy wanted to date the John Rylands Fragment like 200 A.D. this is all obviously just an attempt to dismiss the Gospels.
Atheists have worked hard to remove the Gospels form consideration as evidence and to threat like they don't really even exist. The gospels are treated by atheist as though they are absolute worthless when it comes to history, no scholar anywhere does that.
It's not hard to find Biblical scholarship that supports the Gospels better than most atheists do. Even stuff taht reject them as historical treats them better than atheist do.